Talk:Dynamic Science Stories

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dynamic Science Stories/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Another short run- happy to take on the review! J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Again, as there are only a couple of issues, perhaps both covers (if both accessible and PD) would be good? Template:Multiple images is useful.

  I added the other image. I didn't use the multi-image template, though I can change it if you think it necessary -- I thought it would look odd to have two images at the right of the lead, and I wanted to keep at least one of them there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps it is worth mentioning the cover artists, if you have a source? The fact the first artist was notable suggests it belongs in the prose.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm seeing a surprisingly large number of mentions on Google Scholar and Google Books, but I see that this is mostly just appearing in lists of pulp magazines.

I can't really see much else to say. The only thing I can add (and I put this out for discussion, I am not sure if it is the right option) is that it is possible that this one only borders on the notable, and would be better merged to Marvel Science Stories, which is the "main" publication. Merged together, the articles would only be around 15kb, which is still a very manageable size (and may give Marvel enough "meat" to have a shot at FAC). Just a thought. J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea -- I have done something similar with Cosmic Stories and Stirring Science Stories. Those were a little more closely related than these two would be, though. Wonder Stories and Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories are also merged articles. As it happens, Marvel Science Stories is at FAC already, and it looks as though it might be promoted soon. If you think it should be merged, I'll raise the question at the FAC before it gets promoted. I am not sure about the merge; the argument is mainly from length, I think, since it's not generally true that a companion magazine should be merged to the senior magazine of the pair. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to suggest a merge while the target article is at FAC, but I will note that my concern is as much about notability as about length. A two-issue magazine isn't the sort of thing that you'd expect to be notable, and, though the sources are very good, I can see some people calling this "borderline" in terms of substantial third-party coverage (thus raising the question of whether an article is warranted at all). I defer to your judgement on this matter, as (in my own judgement, and especially considering the many passing mentions in scholarly publications) this does seem to be just on the right side of the notability bar. J Milburn (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think so too; we do have multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources, though the independence is somewhat compromised by Ashley's involvement in each of the main sources. But then he's one of the top experts in the world on this, so that's what you'd expect. If I'm not merging, is there anything else that needs to be done for GA? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with how the article's looking now- while it's very short, this is to be expected. Promoting now. J Milburn (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)